1

““The Past Was Close Behind”The Past Was Close Behind” Developmental Forerunners of Developmental Forerunners of Couple InteractionsCouple Interactions

W. Andrew Collins University of Minnesota wcollins@umn.edu

Collaborators: Katherine Haydon, Minda Oriña, Jessica Salvatore, Jeffry Simpson, SiSi Tran

2

OverviewOverview

• The long arm of childhood relationships

• A research approach: Longitudinal-developmental research from birth to age 32

• Two multi-method analyses of relationship history and functioning in couples

• Implications and possible health-related

directions

3

Attachment as a FrameAttachment as a Frame• Species-typical behaviors evolved through natural

selection• Implicates hormones and peptides associated

with lactation and regulation of pain and stress• Mutually regulated dyadic systems• From birth forward, experiences in successive life

periods form and modify relationship-relevant behaviors, emotions, and cognitions

• Relationship functioning is always a function of history and current circumstances

“Bonding patterns established in infancy may also carry over or become re-established in adult relationships and emerge as emotional reactions to relationship challenges or loss.”

Planalp, Fitness, & Fehr (2006), p. 380

4

Secure Attachment Promotes Secure Attachment Promotes

Relationship DevelopmentRelationship Development• Confidence to explore novel/challenging (social)

situations

• Empathy, social skills

• Positive expectations about others’ responsiveness

• Regulation of emotions

• Stage-setting: peer relationships elaborate and expand on these abilities

5

Links from infant to adult Links from infant to adult attachmentattachment

• 64%-77% concordance between infant and adult attachment classifications in the U. S. (same person)

• Maternal AAI scores predicted their infants’ attachment 75% of the time

Concordance across three generations

(grandmother, mother, infant)

6

Security of attachment in infancy Security of attachment in infancy related to later relationshipsrelated to later relationships

• Effective peer relationships in school Early insecurity predicts more competitive

and aggressive interactions in preschool

• Adult romantic relationships e.g., early insecuritygreater hostility to

partner at 20-21

7

ByronEgeland

Alan Sroufe

8

ByronEgeland

Alan Sroufe

9

Minnesota Longitudinal Study Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptationof Risk and Adaptation

Key Question: What processes account forcontinuity and change in adaptation from birth to maturity?

Three aspects of adaptation:• Normative social development• Educational achievement, functioning• Psychopathology

10

Longitudinal-Developmental Longitudinal-Developmental PerspectivePerspective

• Focus on the main challenges facing individuals in each life period

• Continuity and change

• Essential environmental supports

• Near- and long-term consequences of difficulties, environmental deficits

11

MLS/PC: ParticipantsMLS/PC: Participants265 primiparous mothers in third trimester of pregnancy• Mother’s ages at delivery: 12-34 years

(M=20.60; SD=3.57)

• 83% Caucasian, 12% African-American• 58% single• 59% HS graduates• IQ test scores: 49-142 (M=105.30, SD=15.13)

• Occupations: clerical & service workers; laborers; professional/administrative; students; 15% unemployed

12

Today . . .Today . . .• 180 participants• Half stable, economically independent• 51% with relatively stable relationships

rated as high quality, growth-enhancing• 9.6% are college graduates; 19% in

school at least part time• 75% working; majority express job

satisfaction

13

Frequent, detailed Frequent, detailed assessmentsassessments

All participants studied at:• Birth, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30, 42, 48, 54, 64 months• Kindergarten, grades 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 • Ages 16, 17½, 19, 23, 26, 28

Subsamples:• Nursery school (age 4)• Summer camps (ages 10-11)• Weekend retreat (age 15)• Romantic partners/couples (ages 20-21, 26-27)

14

Multiple independent Multiple independent measuresmeasures

Multiple settings• Laboratories• Homes• Schools• Camps

Multiple Data Sources• Observer data • Ratings (teachers, counselors, parents)• Test data• Self-report data (caregivers, participants)• School, public records

15

Developmentally Keyed Developmentally Keyed MeasurementMeasurement

Infancy Exploratory behavior; attachment

Preschool Curiosity, problem-solving; group entry, beginning peer affiliation

Middle Childhood School (achievement, adjustment); networks, friendship

Adolescence(12-18)

Identity, behavior problems, regulation; mixed gender groups, friendship intimacy, dating

Early Adulthood (19-25)

School, work functioning; romantic relationships, family formation

16

Romantic Relationship Assessments:Romantic Relationship Assessments:Interviews of all participants Interviews of all participants (16, 19, 23, 26)(16, 19, 23, 26)

Dating history Activities with, & feelings about, partner - “…time when you felt especially close…” - “…biggest fight or argument in the past month…”

Coder ratings on 5-point scales of overall quality High=mutual caring, trust, support, emotional closeness Low=bland, empty; hurtful to one or both parties; role rigidity,

chronic intense conflict, victimization Intraclass r’s=.85-.93

17

Romantic Relationship Assessments: Romantic Relationship Assessments: Effectiveness of Involvement in Relationships (23)Effectiveness of Involvement in Relationships (23)

• Interview about dating history and current relationship

• Coded for all participants High = formed & maintained positive

relationship(s) OR left negative ones Low = no relationships or stayed in negative

ones Intraclass r = .94

18

Romantic Relationship Assessments:Romantic Relationship Assessments:Couples Procedure (20-21 & 27)Couples Procedure (20-21 & 27)

• Interviews with partners separately

• Observations of collaborative problem-solving

• Coder ratings of: Overall quality of relationship Hostility, anger, positive/negative emotion, etc., in

interactions Intraclass r’s= .82-.96

19

What is the role What is the role of relationship history?of relationship history?

• Caregiving composite (ages 12-42 months)

• Peer competence (teacher ratings) (preschool, grades 1-3, 6)

• Parent-child collaboration, emotional support, and effectiveness of conflict resolution (age 13)

• Friendship security ratings (age 16)

20

Some Key FindingsSome Key FindingsQuality of romantic relationships in early Adulthood (ages 21-22) significantly related to relationship experiences from birth

forward.

• Relationship history from birth through middle adolescence significantly related to indicators of harmony and flexible functioning (e.g., effective conflict resolution, shared positive affect) at 21-22 and 26.

21

Developmental coherence: Developmental coherence: Romantic and earlier relationshipsRomantic and earlier relationships

Relationship status, activity

Infancy: none

Emotional support, conflict resolution in families (13)

Peer competence (grade 6)

Friendship competence (16)

Relationship Quality

Infancy: responsive care

Emotional support, conflict resolution in families (13)

Peer competence (grades 1-3)

Friendship competence (16)

Collins & Madsen, 2002

22

Some Key FindingsSome Key FindingsQuality of romantic relationships in early adulthood(ages 21-22) significantly related to relationship experiences from birth forward.

• Relationship history from birth through middle adolescence significantly related to indicators of harmony and flexible functioning (e.g., effective conflict resolution, shared positive affect) at 21-22 and 26.

• Profile of general peer competence in childhood and adolescence predicts relationship status (age 23), but not quality. Friendship quality profiles predict quality (ages 21-22), but not status.

23

Early Relationship Quality

Represen-tation

Represen-tation

Represen-tation

Represen-tation

SocialExperience

SocialExperience

SocialExperience

RelationshipCompetence

SocialExperience

Infancy/ Early Middle Early Later Early Todder Childhood Childhood Adolescence Adolescence Adult 12-24 mos 4-5 yrs 8 yrs 12 yrs 16 yrs Age 23

24

Should we expect the long arm of developmental history to reach into adult partnerships?

In what ways?

25

Case #1:Forerunners of Differential

Emotional Experiences

26

Emotional Experience in Relationships: Emotional Experience in Relationships: Attachment PerspectivesAttachment Perspectives

• Early attachment experiences uniquely tied to the experience and expression of emotions in relationships

• Individuals with relatively more secure attachment histories experience and/or express more positive and less negative emotions in their relationships

27

Adult Couple RelationshipsAdult Couple Relationships

Emotional Tone Index (ETI) (age 20-23): • The extent of positive emotions

• The extent of negative emotions

• The balance of emotions (positive emotions – negative emotions)

28

Observations of Couple InteractionsObservations of Couple Interactions

At age 20-23, each couple engaged in a video-taped conflict resolution and Ideal Couple Q-sort task (30 mins).

Ratings composited to create scores for each couple’s:

• Positive relationship process (positive affect, secure base behavior, quality of conflict resolution, quality of interaction)

• Negative relationship process (negative affect, anger, hostility).

29

PredictionsPredictions• Link between regulation of emotions when

distressed in the Strange Situation (at 12 months) and experiencing/expressing emotions in adult relationships (at 20-23).

• Link should be mediated through functioning in 2 critical arenas : Social competence in elementary school, Security with friends in high school.

30

Assessments before AdulthoodAssessments before AdulthoodRecall:

• Early Attachment: Strange Situation at 12 months.

• Social Competence (grades 1-3): Teacher rank-ordering of all children in classroom.

• Friendship Security (age 16): Raters scored the extent to which participants claimed they could “be themselves” in their friendships, expected friends to be available and supportive, and shared positive and negative personal experiences with friends.

31

Attachment History and Attachment History and Emotional ExperienceEmotional Experience

InfantAttachment

Peer Competence

FriendshipSecurity

Adult ETI (balance)

.36**

.38**

.27*

.20+

+ p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

CFI=1.0, RMSEA=0.00, X2 (2)=.20, ns

32

Attachment History and Attachment History and Emotional ExperienceEmotional Experience

InfantAttachment

Peer Competence

FriendshipSecurity

Adult Positive Process

.36**

.38**

.41**

.05

** p < .01

CFI=1.0, RMSEA=0.00, X2 (2)=.24, ns

33

Attachment History and Attachment History and Emotional ExperienceEmotional Experience

InfantAttachment

Peer Competence

FriendshipSecurity

Adult Negative Process

.36**

.38**

-.35**

-.09

** p < .01

CFI=1.0, RMSEA=0.00, X2 (2)=1.19, ns

34

Attachment History and Attachment History and Emotional ExperienceEmotional Experience

InfantAttachment

Peer Competence

FriendshipSecurity

Adult Composite Index

.36**

.38**

.43**

.20+

+ p < .10; ** p < .01

CFI=1.0, RMSEA=0.00, X2 (2)=1.19, ns

35

And so . . .And so . . .

• Self-reported emotional experience of both partners and the characteristic couple interaction patterns reflect the history of age-salient relationships from birth through adolescence.

• Relationships after infancy contribute significantly, over and above the direct connection from infant to adult relationship.

36

Case #2: Developmental Roots of

Conflict Resolution Patterns

37

Effectiveness of Conflict Effectiveness of Conflict Resolution: Observational Resolution: Observational

CodingCoding• Assesses couple’s ability to make decisions or

resolve conflicts in a manner that leads to mutual satisfaction with the outcome; e.g., Discuss each side openly, listen to each other’s

perspective, accommodate both views in resolution Work cooperatively, rather than being dominated by one

partner

• High = Both partners appear satisfied with the process; resolution process occasions little strain, obvious effort

• Low = One partner appears manifests dissatisfaction either actively or passively

• High agreement between coders (ri = .96)

38

Partners’ Conflict Partners’ Conflict Resolution StrategiesResolution Strategies

High Symmetry

Cross-Complaint Reciprocal demands for change Criticism, complaints, accusations, attacks

Mutual AvoidanceBoth partners skirt around topic, change the subject, etc.

Low Symmetry

Demand-Withdraw Partner 1 demands change Partner 2 withdraws to preserve status quo

Demand-Comply Partner 1 demands change Partner 2 complies to short-circuit conflict

39

Conflict Strategy ScalesConflict Strategy Scales

• Dyadic, holistic

• 5-point scales 1 = strategy never used

5 = only strategy observed

• Intercoder reliabilities = .72 - .97

40

Question 1: How frequently was Question 1: How frequently was each of the strategies used? each of the strategies used?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

None MA CC DC DW

% of couples usingstrategy

41

Question 1: What % is each Question 1: What % is each strategy of total strategies used? strategy of total strategies used?

NoneMACCMA and CCMA and DCMA and DWDW and CCDW, CC, MAOther31%

12%

13%8%

6%

5%

6%

8%

12%

42

Question 2: How important is each strategy Question 2: How important is each strategy to overall conflict resolution effectiveness?to overall conflict resolution effectiveness?

Increase in

effect size (R2)

• Demand-Comply .04

• Demand-Withdraw .04 to .14**

• Mutual Avoidance .14 to .24**

• Cross-Complaint .24 to .43**

43

Question 3: Prediction from early Question 3: Prediction from early relationships + current strategiesrelationships + current strategies

• Does combination of early relationship experiences and current resolution strategies predict couple rating of resolution effectiveness better than either alone?

• Answer: Yes

• Effect size (R2) for current behavior + developmental predictors = .55

44

Some Lessons So FarSome Lessons So Far• Early relationship history provides useful

information about both the “insider” perspective and “outsider” perspectives on key experiences and behaviors of established couples.

• Process of developmental influence is on-going and represents the result of both history and current circumstances.

• Continuing goal: What can we learn about marital stability, satisfaction, and effective functioning from attending to the interplay of history and current circumstances?

45

It takes two.I thought one was enough,It's not true:It takes two of usYou came throughWhen the journey was rough.It took you.It took two of us.

It takes oneTo begin, but then onceYou've begun,It takes two of you.

Lyrics from “It Takes Two” by Stephen Sondheim

46

Special Thanks ToSpecial Thanks To

Byron Egeland Alan Sroufe

Michelle Englund Elizabeth Carlson

Michelle Englund

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

47

Relationship Processes and Relationship Processes and Health: Health: Some Working AssumptionsSome Working Assumptions

• Relationships, both historically and currently, are integral to emotion regulation and, in turn, to competence in key adult roles (e.g., parenting, work) and to the balance among roles.

• Stress and morbidity are related to particulars of social roles.

• Well being likely mediates between relationship functioning and physical health.

48

49

A Five-Feature FrameworkA Five-Feature Framework• Involvement (How much? When? To what

degree?)

• Partner selection (With whom?)

• Content (Doing what?)

• Quality (How? In what manner?)

• Cognitive and emotional processes (With what thoughts, feelings?)

50

An Autobiographical LyricAn Autobiographical Lyric“I had a job in the great north woodsWorking as a cook for a spellBut I never did like it all that muchAnd one day the ax just fellSo I drifted down to New OrleansWhere I happened to be employedWorkin’ for a while on a fishin’ boatRight outside DelacroixBut all the while I was aloneThe past was close behindI seen a lot of womenBut she never escaped my mind, and I just grewTangled up in blue”

Tangled Up in Blue from Blood on the Tracks, 1975

51

Before “Couplehood”: Before “Couplehood”: Measures of Relationship HistoryMeasures of Relationship History

• Early Attachment: Strange Situation at 12 months. • Peer Competence (grades 1-3): Teacher rank-

ordering of all children in classroom.

• Family Interactions (age 13): Observer ratings of parental emotional support and parent-child conflict resolution processes during laboratory problem-solving tasks

• Friendship Security (age 16): Raters evaluated the extent to which participants claimed they could “be themselves” in their friendships, expected friends to be available and supportive, and shared positive and negative personal experiences with friends.

52

Early emphasis: Quality of Early emphasis: Quality of caregiver-child relationshipscaregiver-child relationships

Parent-child relationships

Behaviors toPartner

Relationships w/same &/or other

gender peers

Relationship Quality

53

Prediction from symmetrical Prediction from symmetrical strategy use strategy use vs.vs. asymmetrical asymmetrical

strategy usestrategy use Increase in

effect size (R2)

• From symmetrical patterns (MA, CC), .14 to .43 controlling for assymmetrical (DW, DC)

• From asymetrical patterns (DW,DC), .39 to .43 controlling for symmetrical (MA, CC)